Yes but when people misunderstand the word Theory with respect to science and then spread lies, I don't see how science can be as, ummm, I guess forgiving.

I have read this movie, and saw Ben Stein interview on CNN last week.

He talked about two things the movie was going to focus on, ID and Global Warming. Global warming is a farce, and there are plenty of scientist specializing in relevant fields that agree that global warming is not happening.

From what I got from the article was not that this movie was going to argue that ID was true, but the fact that Darwinism has a lot of whole in it, and science is supposed to be trying to disprove theories to find the truth. Darwinist spend most of their time trying to prove the theory, (prolly because the people that are most anti-Darwin are using ID to back up their point).

There are lots of theories and scientific calculations that require a piece of the puzzle simply being there in the first place. What I got from the interview was that a lot of people in the scientific community were unable to properly do their job if their findings either disproved global warming, or agreed with ID.

I think ID is a wasted argument because 1. Not many atheist believe in ID, and 2. We know so little about our past, submitting to ID is kind of a cop out (less than 5% of total dinosaur species have been discovered).

I hope the global warming piece gets it's fair share of screen time, because Ben Stein is pretty much just saying what a lot of scientist have been saying for the past 5 years, that there is more evidence against the possibility that we are experiencing a man-made long term global warming process, than there is to support it.

The problem is the ID movement is attempting to redefine the terms of the debate, and that doesn't wash.

Science is the search for "natural" answers, not supernatural.

ID theory is based on an unprovable, untestable assumption known as "Irreducible Complexity". As such a concept is untestable and unprovable, it places itself outside the scientific method.

ID proponents can cry "wahhh! You guys won't change the rules/method to let our theory in the door". However, the Scientific method simply does not work that way.

I'm all for Science debate, conducted within the bounds of the Scientific method.


As for this film, like the offerings of Mr. Moore, I'll pass.

Or Lysenko genetics, phlogiston theory, etc. If we are going to ignore the basic tenets of the Scientific Method to allow for "Irreducible Complexity", might as well start teaching Phrenology, Crystal Healing, Astrology, and all the other psuedo-sciences.

Sure, and then in a generation or two see where we stack up in Science and Math with the rest of the world. :shake:

I have no problem with teaching Creationism/ID in a religion or philosophy course. It simply doesn't belong in a Science class for the reasons discussed above.

Why shouldn't both be taught in a Science class? For the same reason we don't teach Phys. Ed in a Physics class. Both may have something to do with energy, motion, etc., but they are not even close to being the same thing.

Exactly. You can't "teach both sides" when they're not sides but rather different coins altogether. "Teach the controversy" is just an intellectually disingenuous way of weaseling religion into scientific discussion, and it detracts from teaching actual, gasp, science.

If you want to talk about the differences between Christian creationism and the Buddhist creation belief in philosophy class, feel free. But calling creationism by a different name and pretending it's science is ludicrous and dishonest.

This is exactly Ben Stein's point. People see fossils, copy and paste big words from the internet, and think that the theory is proof. It would be bad enough if it stopped there, but any other line of thinking gets you shunned in the scientific community.

The problem with this subject is that knowledge and science should be the first things we turn to, but instead most people turn to dogmatic or anti-dogmatic beliefs. This happens for several reasons. First, most people/groups that speak up for ID have no credentials except that they believe in God. This makes everybody else hear "Intelligent Design", and automatically assume that the designer has to be the God of Genesis.

To me, you can either believe that all creatures evolved from a non-living matter, (a rock), or you can believe in ID. There is a good deal of faith required for both. I don't think that most people think that ID should be taught in the science class because there isn't a lot of science behind it. However, kids shouldn't be taught that Darwinism is flawless. Micro-evolution has a lot of scientific evidence to back it up, making it uncontroversial. Macro-evolution theory has a lot of holes in it, and if you want to teach it as "science" you should expose these holes and try to use them to disprove the theory. That's what science should be about!

Darwinism starts with a single cell organism, but where did that organism come from? Either we all came from non-living matter or life has always existed in the universe, or something created/designed the organism. None of those ideas can be defended on any scientific basis.

If he's purporting that global warming is not happening, it's just another lie in a long line of lies blasted from his soapbox. Global warming is happening. The question is whether man has created it, facilitated it or aided it. In essence, the questions is whether it is independent of man or influenced by man. There is no debate that global warming is happening. If he says this, the movie has more issues than I thought.

Stein's entire position is that there is a "Big Science", which is bad. It's like Hitler and only allows his views to be represented. It shuts out things like creationism and ID from the discourse. This just isn't true. If they would apply ID to the scientific method and present some evidence, they would get somewhere. However, they haven't.

Typically, creationists quote-mine other scientists, sometimes really bad. They usually mangle the word "Theory" to mean "guess", which it does not. It's hard to take people seriously when they cannot grasp basic scientific language.

Yep, he's going to argue that it's a flawed theory and we are missing fossils and the usual garbage. Science has moved on. Darwin's theory is the founding rock of biology at the moment. There is very little, if any, evidence against it.

Sure, there are holes in an over arching theory, but none that shake the foundations and let it lose it's credibility. The point is that they would like you to think it's so full of holes that scientists are trying to plug them. It's simply not true. There are holes and there are modifications trying to be made to the theory. Both sides are arguing back and forth within the scientific method. This is standard operating procedure within science.

And Ben Stein has what credibility in the field of science? And if he's already misrepresented his intentions to lure scientists, what exactly shoudl we gain from any credibility he does have?

It's like a political science teacher telling a nuclear physicist that he can't do his job properly.

Aside from the lack of evidence, I'd agree with you. But #1 is not a reason to toss ID aside.

Notice the distinction between this and what you opened with. I'll be interested to see which argument he sides with. And I don't think science has taken a stance on whether man has caused it. But I don't think it hurts or is inaccurate to say we aren't helping.

Likewise, people like Ben Stein and other creationists come up with ludicrous statements like "God hid all the fossils here to test us". There are plenty of fossils to back up the Theory of Evolution.

You also illustrate the big problem: education. What you are saying is that there is a disconnect between what people see and what people understand. That's where education comes in. And the sad fact is that creationists are killing the education that's there by redirecting discourse to "teach the controversy". Take a look at Oklahoma, Texas and Florida for recent cases. Oklahoma tried to pass a bill that said science teachers couldn't count tests answers wrong if they were religiously grounded. In other words, I could say that the Flying Speghetti Monster created the world yesterday and planted fossils here so that people could have jobs putting puzzles together. According to law, they would have to accept this answer. Texas has tried in many districts to pass legislature that instructs teachers to teach the "controversy" even though there isn't one. Florida has the same problem. And of course, Kansas has been fighting that for years and is the laughing stock because of it.


Valid points. That's why the Flying Spagehtti Monster was created - to fight Kansas board of education people's "teach the controversy" and "equal class time" ideas.

Stop right there. You are complaining about what people look at and post on the internet and you have just illustrated your point. No one has argued that we evolved from non-living matter (a rock). This underscores your lack of understanding about evolution. And that's where the problem is. We are killing the education that is supposed to EDUCATE you. All in the name of political correctness and religious ideology.

And yet, people don't understand this. There is no science behind it. Apply the Scientific Method to it and you don't get anywhere.

This is a wrong assumption. No one has said that evolution doesn't have holes in it. Science LOVES to exploit those holes. However, science does not like it when those holes are viewed - wrongly - to let things like ID live with credibility when placed next to it. The holes don't let ID live. They just make the case ongoing - as science always is.

Again, you illustrate your lack of understanding on the topic of evolution. The holes aren't big enough to "disprove the theory" which is what you're suggesting. If they were, you'd bet your bottom dollar scientists would be on that. There's a lot of prestige for that kind of find. Moreover, Macro-evolution is "science" however much you want to put quotes around it. In fact, it doesn't take much once you buy into micro evolution to see that changes in the cells over millions of years will form branches of things and ultimately cause a wide variety of different species. That's MACRO evolution. It's an easy bridge but one people want to deny.

Thank you for lastly illustrating a common misconception. Evolution doesn't even attempt to answer where life came from. Period. End of story. It is based on a presumption of life. Life exists, is it's premise. Once it does, it evolves.

Don't confuse the Big Bang Theory and Evolution to the same thing as creationists do. These ideas can be defended on a scientific bases, just not at the present time. Just like the radio couldn't be defended by scientists in the 16th century.

I could go back through and argue every statement you made about Darwinism and against ID, but as I already said it is a waste of time. I read a lot of stuff from the internet but I also read a lot of books, watch documentaries, and our last family vacation was to Chicago to see the Museum of Field Science. That doesn't make me an expert, but I refuse to blindly agree with anything simply because somebody "says" it.


Speaking of blindly agreeing.... enter Al Gore and the American public. I guess I should have phrased the global warming statement differently. The Global Warming as described by Al Gore and the media, which is believed by 70% of the public and has people measuring their carbon footprint, is a farce. This man made global warming that is going to melt Antartica is no less of a farce than the media driven "Global Cooling" scare of the 70's.

That's fine, but you highlighted your ignorance and purported a view point after saying that a lot of people see/read things and make opinions on them without understand them. Just because you read books, watch documentaries, and went to the Museum, doesn't mean that you understand. Likewise, I may be wrong on some points too. But it's through discourse that we discover these things.

No one is advocating blind faith. Moreover, you also highlight another aspect of the thing you so despise. You are unwilling and consider it a waste of time to openly discuss "Darwinism" (I don't see why you don't just say Evolution. It seems like a weak attempt to package it as a religion so as to discard it from the classroom as well.) or ID. Discussion is what facilitates EDUCATION.

The jury is still out. Again, I don't think there's any harm in highlighting the fact that we can HELP keep the planet in better shape. That's what Al Gore is doing. Whether he's doing it sensationally or scare tactics wise, is another matter. But telling people to measure their carbon footprint is perfectly fine.

You're damn right though, global warming can be happening independently from anything humans have done.

Man Bear Pig

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l6...manbearpig.jpg

Environmental Hysteria

<a href="http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=8917946">Penn and Teller - Bullshit! - Environmental Hysteria</a><br><embed src="http://lads.myspace.com/videos/vplayer.swf" flashvars="m=8917946&v=2&type=video" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="430" height="346"></embed>

Creationism

<a href="http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2307760">Penn & Teller Creationism Bullshit</a><br><embed src="http://lads.myspace.com/videos/vplayer.swf" flashvars="m=2307760&v=2&type=video" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="430" height="346"></embed>

You have got to be kidding. :shake:

You think the reerun fish baby having butt sex with a reerun squirrel baby is the better theory?

Do you have a citation for that particular theory? I hadn't heard about it during my educational/post-educational experiences.

To answer your question, your theory and the statement in question both sound equally stupid.

As a credentialed environmentalist and one with an interest in ID, please shut up and talk about sports.

Yes, I do have a citation. Pitt should rethink their current curriculum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw-b2...eature=related